Code of Ethics of NAADAC and NASW - Term Paper Example

?RUNNING HEAD: OF ETHICS OF NAADAC AND NASW of Ethics of NAADAC and NASW School of Ethics of NAADAC and NASW International drug control treaties provide the legal foundation for action related to drug control. Responding to drug abuse problems is a complex area of social intervention that will often include a wide range of agencies, including social services, criminal agencies (such as the police, probation and prison authorities), as well as other health and social agencies. A range of legal issues and provisions affect the organization and delivery of treatment for drug abuse and dependence. There is a marked variation between countries in nature and scope of those legal controls. A paradigm shift has been evidenced in the health profession concerning the perception of addiction among individuals. Indeed, from substance abuse to shopping, drinking water to intoxication, committing anti-social or criminal acts, and using computers, social observers have applied the notion of abuse to many and varied human activities. The essay focuses on the differences and similarities between the substance abuse Code of Ethics of the National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (NAADAC) and those of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). Comparison between Code of Ethics of NAADAC and NASW NAADAC and NASW provide for different treatments of an adult and a minor. An adolescent suffering from a psychoactive substance use disorder is considered a minor and consequently, in some states, may not be asked to provide an informed consent for treatment (Cottone, 2006). Parents are typically required to give consent for the treatment of any child. However, in some states, such as New Jersey, the law authorizes minors to obtain treatment for substance abuse without a parent or guardian’s consent. A minor, who is 14 years or older, may also request hospital admission for psychiatric without a parent or guardian’s consent. In New Jersey, treating physicians—and probably all health professionals—are permitted, but not obligated, by law to inform the minor’s parents or guardians about any treatment provided, without the minor’s consent. In addition, both NAADAC and NASW provide that the social workers should not be guided by their own psychosocial distress, personal problems, mental health problems, or substance abuse in making an ethical decision, as it would have an adverse effect on their professional performance and judgment. In addition, it should not jeopardize the best interests of people for whom they have a professional resistibility (Coombs, 2004). However, social workers whose psychosocial distress, personal problems, mental health problems, or substance abuse impedes professional performance and the overall judgment should have to seek appropriate consultation and may also seek professional help in the medical field. As such, they should be able to make adjustments in workload, terminate practice, or take any other steps to protect clients and others. Both NAADAC and NASW Code of Ethics explicitly prohibit substance abuse counselors from emotionally, sexually, or financially exploiting relationships of unequal power; that is, with supervisees, student’s interns, research participants, or volunteers. The drug abuse counselors have a responsibility of managing sexual feelings toward those they supervise. This should be done in the same way they would be expected to manage such feelings toward clients. The principles governing dual relationships with clients have direct applicability to the supervisor-supervisee relationship (Segal, 2009). In both NAADAC and NASW, the ethical principle provides that social workers should focus on the clients’ services rather their own interest. The social workers and specialists have drawn their own values, knowledge and skills in addressing the social problems and the needs of people. The social workers and specialists are encouraged to offer volunteer services to society without much concern on the financial returns. This will ensure that they offer equal services and resources to clients. In addition, both standards provide non-discrimination on individual drug addicts or abusers. A prevention specialist shall not, in any given situation, discriminate colleagues and service recipients based on religion, race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability, or economic condition. Consequently, a prevention specialist shall observe the profession’s ethical and ethical standards, should strive to improve the personal competency, and the quality service delivery in the institution. He or she is entitled to performing a professional responsibility that will result in the organization success. As such, the diligence of the specialist in executing one’s responsibilities should be at the highest standard required. This will ensure that the specialist renders the services promptly and with care, being thorough in whatever he undertakes, and observes the applicable ethical and technical standards set out by the management (Difranks, 2010). In addition, competence will be realized when the specialist plans and executes his activities with due care and in a professional way. However, the standards highlights that the specialist should be aware of the boundaries and limitations that attribute to the effective competent staff. As such, each of the specialists should recognize the adversity of harnessing unethical conduct in the society. Integrity is the vital ethical conduct that is imposed by both NAADAC and NASW in the realization of successful operations. In order to broaden and maintain public confidence, the prevention specialist of the drug and substance abuse should perform all the relevant responsibilities with the highest level of integrity. According to Corey (2010), integrity can easily accommodate inadvertent error and the perceived honesty in the differences of opinion. Personal advantage and gain should not relegate to a lower level public trust and services. The information available should be presented in an accurate and fair manner. The specialist needs to assign and document credit on all the sources that are used in public statements or published materials to realize credibility of the whole process. As such, the code provides that the specialist should not be involved indirectly and directly with any products or services that are incorrect or misleading. Counseling relationship in NAADAC tries to safeguard the professional-client relationship. The welfare of the client, his free will in choice, protection from exploitation and harm are covered in this code (Corey, 2010). While in NASW, the first ethical standard governing responsibilities to clients embraces commitment to clients and the client’s freedom, ensuring the latter gets the best services and protected from harm. In both Codes of Ethics, NAADAC and NASW, autonomy which is the freedom of others to choose their destiny is enshrined. In NAADAC, it is implied by White (1993) that decision-making on ethics should take into account autonomy. The same applies with NASW where ethical standards concerned with responsibilities to clients clearly stipulate the right of clients to self-determination. The assistance to clients to determine their goals may be limited if it is a threat to themselves or others, the NASW code provides (Coombs, 2004). Obedience to laws and ethical regulations governing the state and the respective professions is clear in both NAADAC and NASW. NAADACs legal and ethical standards under professional responsibility put the onus on the professional to observe the necessary laws. In NASW, while not specifically stipulating in words the observance of the laws and regulations, it is implied that the ethics ought to be adhered to apart from observing other laws as implied in integrity ethics and ethical standards of responsibilities as professionals, to the social work profession and the broader society (Segal, 2009). Beneficence, help to others, is of the utmost importance in both NAADAC and NASW ethics. Under the ethics of counseling relationship, the first standard is the client welfare. It refers to the concern the addiction professional should have for the well being of others. It further stipulates that the addiction professional’s primary concern should be the welfare of his or her clients. In NASW, the first responsibility is to clients which consists of first, the commitment to clients. Commitment to clients involves promoting the well being of clients. Contrast between Code of Ethics of NAADAC and NASW However, the major difference between the NAADAC and NASW Code of Ethics is on the client’s welfare. NASW does not stipulate the regulation that underlies the client’s welfare. However, NAADAC provides a clear framework on the ethical conduct to be undertaken when involving the client’s welfare. The specialist should safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of the client’s information except in the case where the life of the client is jeopardized or when the client provides a written, specific, limited and informed consent. The client is provided with the confidentiality guide, which is in writing, as a strategy for informing the client on the confidentiality of the information being provided. The specialist is not supposed to collect any form of rewards or compensation from the client for the services that the client has been offered (Difranks, 2010). This will enhance equal and appropriate distribution of services to all individuals. Consequently, NAADAC provides for the principle of duty of care of the specialist. The specialist shall maintain a therapeutic environment wherein colleagues clients, and employees can participate in their endeavors more safely. They will not be subjected to the threat of emotional, physical or intellectual harm. This Code of Ethic ensures that the specialist respects the right of the client to hold on their beliefs, opinions and values which may be different from their own. One should strive to establish and understand the common ground rather than manifesting on the ascendancy of an individual opinion. For effectiveness, the specialist should participate in the area outside one’s competency in the case where the client would greatly need utmost attention. The NAADAC Code of Ethics for substance abuse also fosters on trustworthiness among the specialists. Although, the NASW Code of Ethics also provides for trustworthiness among its specialist, it does not highlight the credentials or experience that must be attached to it for effectiveness (Segal, 2009). According to NAADAC, specialists need to work to the best of their abilities without being coerced, and consistent with the societal morals. This will enhance faithfulness in terms of professional and personal commitments, the safeguard of the fiduciary relationship existing in the institution, and providing for the truthfulness. Indeed unsubstantial claims shall not be provided in the course of the specialist’s service, and statements in the course and nature of the addictive patterns of the clients should be deemed irrelevant unless substantiated by scientific inquiry. The NASW Code of Ethics provides for informed consent from the social workers. This is not the case with the NAADAC Code of Ethics on substance abuse (Coombs, 2004). The social workers should have an informed and valid consent on the adversity of the client’s substance abuse. They should use understandable and clear language when informing the clients for the purpose and aims of the services they are rendering to them, and the risks associated with the services rendered. The client has a right to refuse or accept the services if it is necessary. In the case where the client is illiterate or does not understand the primary language of the region, the social worker should take the necessary steps in ensuring that the client comprehends everything—by use of a translator. Unlike NAADAC, the NASW Code of Ethics is concerned with worth and dignity of the person. Although the client may be affected by drug and substance abuse, the specialists should not lower his or her dignity but should be treated as other human beings. The social workers treat each client in a respectful and caring fashion, being mindful of the differences that are attributed to ethnic and cultural adversity in society (Cottone, 2006). The NASW Code of Ethics, however, does not provide principles, standards, and values that are vital and that outweigh the other Code of Ethics in the case where conflict occurs. The difference in opinions may and do exist among social workers with regard to ethical principles, values and ethical standards. Therefore, the ethical standards need to be in a way that is not conflicting each other. Conclusion The Code of Ethics cannot necessarily guarantee ethical behavior. In addition, the Code of ethics cannot provide a resolution to ethical disputes and issues that prevail in society nor does it capture the complexity and richness that is involved in making informed decisions within society. Rather, the defined code of ethics lays down values, ethical principles, and ethical standards to which professional behavior rely upon when engaging in ethical practice in order to appreciate the personal commitments in the undertakings. Both the NASW and NAADAC Code of Ethics reflect the commitment of all social workers and specialists to act in an ethical way and uphold the values attributed to their profession. The principles and standards must be applied by individuals of exemplary character who discern morally in issues, and, in good faith seek to make reliable judgments. References Coombs, R. H. (2004). Addiction counseling review: preparing for comprehensive, certification, and licensing examinations. London: Routledge. Corey, G. (2010). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. London: Cengage Learning. Cottone, R. R. (2006). Counseling ethics and decision making. New York: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Difranks, N. N. (2010). Social workers and the NASW Code of Ethics. Saarbrucken: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Segal, E. A. (2009). An introduction to the profession of social work: Becoming a change agent. London: Cengage Learning. Read More